Apple was trying to come up with a way to prevent butt-dialing and other unwanted device actions. The point of using a sliding motion is that it's unlikely to happen via random touches, but is reasonably intutive.
Microsoft's video doesn't really show a slider. It shows touch buttons that look visually like sliders. But you can trip them just by touching in the active area for the desired state. This is shown in the video where the demonstrator runs their finger down a column of switches and they all switch. Apple requires an explicit "click and drag" operation to unlock.
From the video "having to use a sliding gesture makes the toggle slightly more difficult to use but greatly reduces the chances of inadvertently switching the toggle"
As far as "not really showing a slider" You can't just touch them, you have to slide. When you runs her finger down a column, she is sliding her finger down the column. It is the sliding motion that triggers it. Not just contacting the on or off section. The sliding toggles require an explicit "click and drag" operation to toggle.
To show a patent claim is not new, you have to show that a single piece of prior art shows everything in the patent claim. This piece of prior art wouldn't do that, since it doesn't show a hand-held electronic device, doesn't really show "continuous" movement as opposed to switching between several icons, and it doesn't show unlocking a device>
It does show continuous movement. She discusses sliding from one side to another, and that it makes it harder to accidentally switch the toggle.
detecting a contact with the touch-sensitive display at a first predefined location corresponding to an unlock image;
The video clearly shows touch the on or the off section (predefined location)
continuously moving the unlock image on the touch-sensitive display in accordance with movement of the contact while continuous contact with the touch screen is maintained,
The video clearly shows continuous sliding from one side to the other, with the demoer talking about sliding, gesture, and making it harder to accidentally toggle. While she doesn't use the words "continuous" surely that is what she means by "sliding"
wherein the unlock image is a graphical, interactive user-interface object with which a user interacts in order to unlock the device
Both the lever and the toggle appear to be graphical, UI objects that the user interacts with
...results in movement of the unlock image from the first predefined location to a predefined unlock region on the touch-sensitive display
Clearly something can be "toggled" when moving from one predefined location to another predefined location.
The only thing really missing is "unlocking the hand-held electronic device" But the demoer keeps talking about a general concept of "toggling" Surely it is obvious that if you can toggle, then you can toggle anything, including toggling from a locked to an unlocked state.
I'm not a lawyer, but it doesn't seem to me that claim 1 is specific to a hand-held, OTHER than to unlock a hand-held device. But really the brunt of the claim is the touch sensitive display and sliding from one predefined area to another.
, hunts down an example of something vaguely similar, and shouts 'look, prior art, prior art! it's invalid!'.
This isn't how prior art (or patents) work.
I'm curious why you think this isn't how prior art works?
Did you seriously see anything there that wasn't painfully obvious? All the video demonstrated to me is that Microsoft throws their money away. It struck me as a bureaucratic butt covering move that they hired her to go through these motions in the first place.
Ignore for the moment that this video is almost 15 years old. And consider that many of the problem she brings up are prevalent in a lot of software today. Apple is still making some of the mistakes...
He is correct, there is no free lunch. But I pay a LOT of money to download a bunch of stuff. I should get to choose where I download it from. If I want to use it all on netflix I should be able to, if I want to spread it around some for google, some for wiki, some for slashdot, I should be able to... But it sure ain't free.
depriving the state and federal government from getting income taxes.
Not exactly. Either the company will pay the taxes, or they pay the employee more, claim that as a deduction, and the employee pays the taxes.
Yes the tax rate for the employee and the company will be different (which is why I said not exactly) and the company might find other loopholes to hide the money. But that is a separate issue.
How were you originally sorting? Were you partitioning the receipts into separate piles, based on some date? And then taking each pile and sorting them? How is this NOT one of those fancy sorting algorithms you learned in comp sci? And how was a radix search faster?
And that is a good reason not to have millions of people driving cars. It will be easier and faster to work out most of the bugs in a computer driven car, than to get everyone to drive error free.
I've always though open office discourage collaboration... It is hard to have a chat in an open office. You either have to find a conference room, or you keep your voice down... or you disrupt others.
The whole point of a patent is to promote science. One awesome way to encourage small inventors to invent, is to allow them to license their invention to someone with the means to produce it. By making it so only active users can hold a patent, you've made it very difficult for the little guy to hold on to patents. And thus you discourage them from inventing.
There are in principle NO advantages to a multiple monitor setup. I
While bendable displays are all the rage at CES at the moment, one advantage to a multi monitor display is that I can position the different displays on different planes. That is a bit difficult to do with a single display. Multi monitors haven't held back the monitor industry. Rather television has
Why? Would you be angry if the company bought a new faster copier? Or are you just suggesting that the company can never upgrade anything ever? "That typewriter still works, why are you replacing it?" Not only should these things improve productivity, I'd be willing to bet they can recoup the investment with lower energy cost.
But thats ok, you know better. No one should ever spend money to improve tools.
I don't understand your point #2. If a book is in public domain, and someone else releases a DRM protected eBook version. Nothing stops you are anyone else from releasing a public domain eBook version.
Don't complicate things needlessly.
Too bad it is impossible to take a list of lats and longs and depths and generate a map.
For a project this size, you could hire a few people to read the paper work and pull the lats and longs out.
Slashdot Mirror
Apple was trying to come up with a way to prevent butt-dialing and other unwanted device actions. The point of using a sliding motion is that it's unlikely to happen via random touches, but is reasonably intutive.
Microsoft's video doesn't really show a slider. It shows touch buttons that look visually like sliders. But you can trip them just by touching in the active area for the desired state. This is shown in the video where the demonstrator runs their finger down a column of switches and they all switch. Apple requires an explicit "click and drag" operation to unlock.
From the video "having to use a sliding gesture makes the toggle slightly more difficult to use but greatly reduces the chances of inadvertently switching the toggle" As far as "not really showing a slider" You can't just touch them, you have to slide. When you runs her finger down a column, she is sliding her finger down the column. It is the sliding motion that triggers it. Not just contacting the on or off section. The sliding toggles require an explicit "click and drag" operation to toggle.
To show a patent claim is not new, you have to show that a single piece of prior art shows everything in the patent claim. This piece of prior art wouldn't do that, since it doesn't show a hand-held electronic device, doesn't really show "continuous" movement as opposed to switching between several icons, and it doesn't show unlocking a device>
It does show continuous movement. She discusses sliding from one side to another, and that it makes it harder to accidentally switch the toggle.
detecting a contact with the touch-sensitive display at a first predefined location corresponding to an unlock image;
The video clearly shows touch the on or the off section (predefined location)
continuously moving the unlock image on the touch-sensitive display in accordance with movement of the contact while continuous contact with the touch screen is maintained,
The video clearly shows continuous sliding from one side to the other, with the demoer talking about sliding, gesture, and making it harder to accidentally toggle. While she doesn't use the words "continuous" surely that is what she means by "sliding"
wherein the unlock image is a graphical, interactive user-interface object with which a user interacts in order to unlock the device
Both the lever and the toggle appear to be graphical, UI objects that the user interacts with
...results in movement of the unlock image from the first predefined location to a predefined unlock region on the touch-sensitive display
Clearly something can be "toggled" when moving from one predefined location to another predefined location.
The only thing really missing is "unlocking the hand-held electronic device" But the demoer keeps talking about a general concept of "toggling" Surely it is obvious that if you can toggle, then you can toggle anything, including toggling from a locked to an unlocked state.
I'm not a lawyer, but it doesn't seem to me that claim 1 is specific to a hand-held, OTHER than to unlock a hand-held device. But really the brunt of the claim is the touch sensitive display and sliding from one predefined area to another.
, hunts down an example of something vaguely similar, and shouts 'look, prior art, prior art! it's invalid!'. This isn't how prior art (or patents) work.
I'm curious why you think this isn't how prior art works?
Did you seriously see anything there that wasn't painfully obvious? All the video demonstrated to me is that Microsoft throws their money away. It struck me as a bureaucratic butt covering move that they hired her to go through these motions in the first place.
Ignore for the moment that this video is almost 15 years old. And consider that many of the problem she brings up are prevalent in a lot of software today. Apple is still making some of the mistakes...
I guess you are throwing the right of self determination out of the window dude.
A lot of people think the the election was rigged. So I'm not so sure about this "right of self determination"
Huh? The user was driving the car forward, then he accidentally hit the gas, it kept going forward. So I'm not sure what your point is
He is correct, there is no free lunch. But I pay a LOT of money to download a bunch of stuff. I should get to choose where I download it from. If I want to use it all on netflix I should be able to, if I want to spread it around some for google, some for wiki, some for slashdot, I should be able to... But it sure ain't free.
Recruiters from other tech companies, or recruiters from headhunting agencies?
depriving the state and federal government from getting income taxes.
Not exactly. Either the company will pay the taxes, or they pay the employee more, claim that as a deduction, and the employee pays the taxes.
Yes the tax rate for the employee and the company will be different (which is why I said not exactly) and the company might find other loopholes to hide the money. But that is a separate issue.
So what you are saying is there isn't actually a missing plane, they just made it up?
. I wouldn't call this guy an inverter,
Why not? Just because he licenses the things he invents? Or do you believe an inventor should also be the producer?
How were you originally sorting? Were you partitioning the receipts into separate piles, based on some date? And then taking each pile and sorting them? How is this NOT one of those fancy sorting algorithms you learned in comp sci? And how was a radix search faster?
People make mistakes, intentionally or otherwise.
And that is a good reason not to have millions of people driving cars. It will be easier and faster to work out most of the bugs in a computer driven car, than to get everyone to drive error free.
proving theories is left as an exercise for the reader
1) The victim is whoever absorbed the assets of the company at its closing. They've lost the value of the tape.
At the time of the closing, the value of the tape couldn't have been more than a few dollars.
So... the worst of both worlds then?
I've always though open office discourage collaboration... It is hard to have a chat in an open office. You either have to find a conference room, or you keep your voice down... or you disrupt others.
So what you are saying is... screw the little guy, hurray for the big companies with money?
The whole point of a patent is to promote science. One awesome way to encourage small inventors to invent, is to allow them to license their invention to someone with the means to produce it. By making it so only active users can hold a patent, you've made it very difficult for the little guy to hold on to patents. And thus you discourage them from inventing.
There are in principle NO advantages to a multiple monitor setup. I
While bendable displays are all the rage at CES at the moment, one advantage to a multi monitor display is that I can position the different displays on different planes. That is a bit difficult to do with a single display. Multi monitors haven't held back the monitor industry. Rather television has
Why? Would you be angry if the company bought a new faster copier? Or are you just suggesting that the company can never upgrade anything ever? "That typewriter still works, why are you replacing it?" Not only should these things improve productivity, I'd be willing to bet they can recoup the investment with lower energy cost.
But thats ok, you know better. No one should ever spend money to improve tools.
I don't understand your point #2. If a book is in public domain, and someone else releases a DRM protected eBook version. Nothing stops you are anyone else from releasing a public domain eBook version.
Don't complicate things needlessly.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/07/31/why-does-amazon-have-more-books-from-the-1880s-than-the-1980s-blame-copyright/ claims there is a SIGNIFICANT drop off of books on amazon after about 20 years. So it appears that something in the range of 25 years (at least for books) is a fine length of time. I don't see why that wouldn't work for any other medium.
Any period of time that is longer than the average lifetime of a human, isn't really limited.
And not even an old boring object... An object used in the same project
Too bad it is impossible to take a list of lats and longs and depths and generate a map.
For a project this size, you could hire a few people to read the paper work and pull the lats and longs out.